- Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · IPR2021-00045 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Remand
Claims 1–3, 9–11, and 17–19 are unpatentable as obvious over Masters; claims 5, 13, and 21 are unpatentable as obvious over Masters and Stone.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“stated that on remand, the Board should “adopt a new construction that includes application instance-level, application-level, device-level, and tierlevel data” and “the Board should determine whether Masters, including its Decision Review Display and Path Display, renders the ‘collecting’ and ‘correlating’ limitations obvious in view of the Board’s new construction. In addition, the Board should consider Masters’ Appendix J in assessing whether Masters’ Path Display teaches life cycle events and the claimed correlating step.” Netflix, 2024 WL 3507601 at *8. After the Federal Circuit issued its mandate, with our authorization, the parties filed the following briefs: Petitioner’s Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 41, “Pet. Remand Br.”), Patent Owner’s Response Brief on Remand (Paper 42, “PO Remand Resp.”), Petitioner’s Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 43, “Pet. Remand Reply”), and Patent Owner’s Sur-Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 44, “PO Remand Sur-Reply”).” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We determine a POSITA would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, with one or two years of experience,” which is consistent with the parties’ arguments and testimony of the parties’ declarants, as well as the level reflected in the ’722 patent and the asserted prior art. We determine it is unnecessary to reach the parties’ additional statements of the knowledge and skills that a POSITA would allegedly possess, as the parties’ arguments do not hinge on those statements.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be generally consistent with the intrinsic record (including the claim language) and the Federal Circuit’s guidance. However, we decline to adopt the use of “related to” instead of “associated with” in Petitioner’s proposed construction because we determine the language used in the claim, “associated with,” is clear enough on its face and Petitioner provides no persuasive justification for altering the plain meaning to “related to”. Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s guidance, we determine the proper construction of “performance data” further includes data pertaining to the performance of a server and/or a technology tier. Netflix, 2024 WL 3507601 at *6 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:56–57, 4:3–8, 4:14–18, 7:26–29). Accordingly, we determine “performance data” means “data associated with the performance of one or more application instances, including instance-level, application-level, device-level, and tierlevel data and includes data pertaining to the performance of a server and/or a technology tier.” We determine no other terms require express construction. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 14
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“Applying our construction of “performance data,” we agree with Petitioner that, among other things, the CPU utilization and review time shown in Masters’ Figure 5.6.2.1-2 and Figures 8A and 8B fall within the scope of the claimed “performance data.” See Pet. 50–56; Reply 17. The CPU utilization data and review time data are both data associated with the performance of one or more application instances. Further, the Figures and corresponding description in Appendix J evidence collection of the performance data for each application instance. Pet. 34–38, 50; Ex. 1024, 39. Similarly, the startup of a copy of the Auto-Special process on Altair11 constitutes a life cycle event, as it is the creation of an application instance, and the termination of Auto-Special on Altair7 is another example of a life cycle event, as claimed. Ex. 1024, 39; see Pet. 39–44. We agree with Petitioner that these Figures and related descriptions in Masters teach collecting performance data and correlating the performance data to the life cycle events. See Pet. 46, 50–55. We also agree with Petitioner that Masters’ Figures 9A and 9B similarly show the collection and correlation of performance data, at least with the response time, action time, CPU score, and similar metrics depicted in the Figures. Pet. 47–49. Figures 9A and 9B show the correlation of the performance data to a life cycle event, by, for example, depicting the performance issue (an overload on Altair11) that cause the creation of a new application instance on Altair3. Pet. Reply 12. We agree with Petitioner that the response time to trigger the creation of an application instance on Altrair3 and the amount of time the application instance takes to start are two examples of performance data correlated with the life cycle event. Pet. Masters, Figures 9A and 9B depict Masters’ Decision Review Display that provides a summary of allocation and reallocation actions taken by the RMA, and “[f]or each action, timing information regarding how long it took the Resource Management functions, e.g., the Resource Manager . . . and the Program Controller . . ., to both arrive at a decision and to enact the decided action are shown along with host fitness scores that were used in arriving at the allocation decision.” Ex. 1004, 30:1–10. We disagree with Patent Owner’s arguments that the Masters’ “response time” “cannot be associated with the performance of the ‘Semi-Auto’ application instance because the response time passes before the instance exists” (PO Remand Br. 4), and we agree with Petitioner that the time required to start an application instance is a metric associated with the creation of that instance. In sum, we agree with Petitioner that Masters teaches the Correlating Limitations.” slip op. at 28
Patent outcomesUS 7,457,722 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,457,722 - Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 28, 2025 · IPR2021-00431 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Remand
Claims 4, 6–8, 12, 14–16, 20, and 22 are unpatentable as obvious over Masters.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“stated that on remand, the Board should “adopt a new construction that includes application instance-level, application-level, device-level, and tierlevel data” and “the Board should determine whether Masters, including its Decision Review Display and Path Display, renders the ‘collecting’ and ‘correlating’ limitations obvious in view of the Board’s new construction. In addition, the Board should consider Masters’ Appendix J in assessing whether Masters’ Path Display teaches life cycle events and the claimed correlating step.” Netflix, 2024 WL 3507601 at *8. After the Federal Circuit issued its mandate, with our authorization, the parties filed the following briefs: Petitioner’s Opening Brief on Remand (Paper 37, “Pet. Remand Br.”), Patent Owner’s Response Brief on Remand (Paper 40, “PO Remand Resp.”), Petitioner’s Reply Brief on Remand (Paper 41, “Pet. Remand Reply”), and Patent Owner’s Sur-reply Brief on Remand (Paper 42, “PO Remand Sur-reply”).” slip op. at 3
- Skill levelSkill level patent owner adoptedDecided for patent owner
“We determine a POSITA would have had “a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering, Computer Science, or a similar discipline, with one or two years of experience,” which is consistent with the parties’ arguments and testimony of the parties’ declarants, as well as the level reflected in the ’722 patent and the asserted prior art. We determine it is unnecessary to reach the parties’ additional statements of the knowledge and skills that a POSITA would allegedly possess.” slip op. at 11
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We find Petitioner’s proposed construction to be generally consistent with the intrinsic record (including the claim language) and the Federal Circuit’s guidance. However, we decline to adopt the use of “related to” instead of “associated with” in Petitioner’s proposed construction. Consistent with the Federal Circuit’s guidance, we determine the proper construction of “performance data” further includes data pertaining to the performance of a server and/or a technology tier. Netflix, 2024 WL 3507601 at *6 (citing Ex. 1001, 3:56–57, 4:3–8, 4:14–18, 7:26–29). Accordingly, we determine “performance data” means “data associated with the performance of one or more application instances, including instance-level, application-level, device-level, and tier-level data and includes data pertaining to the performance of a server and/or a technology tier.”” slip op. at 13
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“With that backdrop, we agree with the parties that the claim language itself sufficiently defines the term “application instance” and that it is unnecessary to further define the term.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 7,457,722 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,457,722 - Affordable Wire Management, LLC v. Cambria County Association For The Blind And Handicapped, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Feb 25, 2025 · IPR2024-00178 · APJ James P Calve · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 14–22, 24, and 25 are unpatentable as obvious over Carr and Almy; the Board did not reach the alternative Caveney grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“II. DISCUSSION A. Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art Petitioner asserts that a skilled artisan would have had “a bachelor’s degree in a pertinent discipline, such as electrical engineering, civil engineering, mechanical engineering or equivalent with 2–3 years of experience in electrical utility systems, planning, and design.” Pet. 20 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51). Petitioner also asserts that the number of years of experience could be higher or lower given the level of education and vice versa. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 51).” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Preamble limiting or notPreamble not limitingDecided for petitioner
“In general, a preamble limits the invention if it recites essential structure or steps, or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.” Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Med. AB, 958 F.3d 1348, 1354–55 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). We agree with Petitioner that the preambles of claims 1 and 6 recite an intended use. The bodies of both claims recite a structurally complete system comprising a messenger wire and a plurality of cable hangers that are disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire and have a plurality of cable carrying surfaces structured to support at least one electrical cable of the plurality of electrical cables and are separated by a cable carrier divider. Ex. 1001, 10:27–37. According to the preambles, the system are used “for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels.” Id. at 10:24–26. slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“Petitioner asserts that Patent Owner’s construction “only replaces ‘organizing’ with ‘separating’” and “organizing” has a broader ordinary meaning than separating and includes “to arrange or order” not merely to separate. Reply 4 (citing Exs. 1052, 1053); id. at 5 (“Separated cables may be organized. But not all organized cables are necessarily separated.”). We adopt Petitioner’s interpretation of “organizing” as “to arrange or order.” Reply 4. This meaning is consistent with the preamble language of “[a] system for organizing a plurality of electrical cables extending from a plurality of solar panels” comprising a messenger wire and cable hangers disposed along and suspended from the messenger wire with cable carrying surfaces that support electrical cables separated by a divider. Ex. 1001, 10:24–37. The system organizes electrical cables by (1) suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers, (2) supporting the cables on cable carrying surfaces of each cable hanger, and (3) separating the cables on adjacent cable carrying surfaces of the cable hangers by using a divider. The “organizing” in the preamble encompasses each of these ways of arranging or ordering the electrical cables but is not limited to any particular way of doing so and merely recites an intended use of the systems. Because we interpret the preamble as reciting an intended use of the systems, we also interpret this portion of the preamble as an intended use of those systems. Our Decision would be the same under Patent Owner’s interpretation that organizing means separating because the combination of Almy and Carr renders obvious a system for organizing electrical cables extending from solar panels by suspending them from a messenger wire on cable hangers that also separate the cables, as discussed infra in Section II.D. See Reply 12 n.4.” slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner argues that a skilled artisan would not have replaced Almy’s wire loops with Carr’s hangers to prevent cross-induction because Almy discloses only DC power cables that extend from the photovoltaic (PV) modules to a combiner box and inverter that converts DC current to AC current without disclosing AC cables or data cables in close proximity to Almy’s DC cables that could create a cross-induction effect. PO Resp. 39– 44 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶¶ 3, 15, 34, Figs. 3, 6; Ex. 2038 ¶¶ 153, 154, 157–160, 163; Ex. 2004, 85:23–86:2, 148:9–14, 154:12–19). We disagree. We agree with Petitioner that a skilled artisan would have used Carr’s cable hangers to organize electrical cables in Almy’s solar power system and prevent cross-induction between AC, DC, and/or data cables. Pet. 45–46; Reply 12–13; Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55. A skilled artisan would know that Carr’s cable hangers would improve Almy’s solar power system by supporting AC, DC, and/or data cables without cross-induction. Pet. 46; Reply 13; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 48, 96–99; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34, 2:15–27, Fig. 1. Carr’s hangers would satisfy regulations requiring AC and DC cables to be separated. Reply 13. Because Almy’s wire loops cannot comply with NEC regulations that require the separation of AC, DC, and data cables, they limit the ability of Almy’s system to power trackers with AC current to move PV modules to track the sun and obtain maximum power. Ex. 1001, 1:20–56; PO Resp. 7–8 (describing the solar industry trend to use trackers and NEC rules requiring separation of AC, DC, and signal cables for such systems). Carr’s hangers would enable Almy’s solar power system to organize AC, DC, and data cables for solar panels and trackers on a single messenger wire to increase efficiency, comply with NEC rules, prevent cross induction, and avoid the costs of trenching and cable trays. Reply 12–13; Pet. 45–47; Ex. 1005, 1:27–34 (Carr’s cable hangers separate arial conducting cables to minimize cross induction); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32–36 (describing the benefits of separating electrical cables with hangers), 48, 96–98 (wire loops cannot prevent cross induction between current- and non-current-carrying cables as hangers do); Ex. 2001 ¶¶ 53–55 (NEC rules require separation of AC, DC, and signal cables); see Metso Mins., Inc. v Powerscreen Int’l Distrib., 526 F. App’x 988, 997 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding a motivation to combine to create a solution that complies with road permit regulations). Carr’s hangers would provide a simple, robust means to support and separate current- and non-current-carrying cables to prevent cross induction without deforming under load in Almy’s solar power system. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 (“[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.”); Intel Corp. v. PACT XPP Schweiz AG, 61 F.4th 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citing Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 799–800 (Fed. Cir. 2021)) (“This is the so-called ‘known-technique’ rationale. And if there’s a known technique to address a known problem using ‘prior art elements according to their established functions,’ then there is a motivation to combine.”); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (an implicit motivation to combine exists when a combination produces a stronger, cheaper, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, and/or more efficient product); Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 32 (IEEE Standard 142 and NSC Rule 235G require spacing of current-carrying and data cables to avoid cross-linking), 42 (2014 NEC spacing requirements), 96–99 (Carr’s hangers support and space conducting cables to prevent cross-linking).” slip op. at 16
Patent outcomesUS 11,349,291 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,349,291 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01114 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR challenging claims 2, 27–30, 32–36, 38, 40, 42–44, 46, 47, 52, 54, 57, and 59, exercising discretion because this was the fourth-ranked parallel petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise. 10 A petitioner is not entitled to an unlimited number of petitions (see Trial Practice Guide 59–61); instead, we determine whether the circumstances justify additional petitions (see id. at 59–60). This approach conforms with the rationale behind imposing a word count limit on petitions. See id. at 39 (discussing the reasons for establishing word count limits and urging parties to present “concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.”). i.e., the analysis of claim 2, the summary of the ’754 patent and prior art, the articulation of the level of skill in the art and claim construction, and the other preliminary comments—and we are not persuaded that they are sufficiently concise to support Petitioner’s argument. Claim 2 is only fifteen lines long, and its technology is relatively simple, yet Petitioner’s analysis of this claim stretches for seventeen pages. See Pet. 24–41. Petitioner provides no general information about the technology and submits that no claims need to be construed (id. at 7), yet Petitioner provides a five-page summary of the ’754 patent and its prosecution history (see id. at 2–6). Also, Petitioner provides a twelve-page summary of Ahn and Chaudhri (see id. at 7–19), despite the fact that neither reference is particularly long. Indeed, as Patent Owner notes, Petitioner was able to remove nearly 1,000 words from these common sections in at least one of the petitions. See Ranking Response 3–4. Because Petitioner’s analysis in the common sections does not appear to be concise, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s use of approximately 8,350 words in those sections justifies the large number of petitions.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01086 · APJ Juliet Mitchell Dirba · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of review of claims 2, 8, 10, 16, 24, 26, and 224 because this petition ranked last among seven parallel petitions.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherDenied
“Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01118 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board denied institution of IPR2024-01118, finding seven parallel petitions unjustified and exercising discretion to deny this sixth-ranked petition.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied
“Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot 12 A petitioner is not entitled to an unlimited number of petitions (see Trial Practice Guide 59–61); instead, we determine whether the circumstances justify additional petitions (see id. at 59–60). This approach conforms with the rationale behind imposing a word count limit on petitions. See id. at 39 (discussing the reasons for establishing word count limits and urging parties to present “concise, well-organized, easy-to-follow arguments supported by readily identifiable evidence of record.”). words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise. As a consequence, we reviewed the content of the common sections— i.e., the analysis of claim 2, the summary of the ’754 patent and prior art, the articulation of the level of skill in the art and claim construction, and the other preliminary comments—and we are not persuaded that they are sufficiently concise to support Petitioner’s argument. Claim 2 is only fifteen lines long, and its technology is relatively simple, yet Petitioner’s analysis of this claim stretches for seventeen pages. See Pet. 26–43. Petitioner provides no general information about the technology and submits that no claims need to be construed (id. at 8–9), yet Petitioner provides a six-page summary of the ’754 patent and its prosecution history (see id. at 3–8). Also, Petitioner provides a twelve-page summary of Ahn and Chaudhri (see id. at 9–21), despite the fact that neither reference is particularly long. Indeed, as Patent Owner notes, Petitioner was able to remove nearly 1,000 words from these common sections in at least one of the petitions. See Ranking Response 3–4. Because Petitioner’s analysis in the common sections does not appear to be concise, we are not persuaded that Petitioner’s use of approximately 8,350 words in those sections justifies the large number of petitions.” slip op. at 12
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - PTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01115 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and all grounds after finding a reasonable likelihood that Apple would prevail on at least one claim.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. We do not agree, however, that seven petitions are justified.8” slip op. at 11
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’754 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers (Pet. 6) appears to be commensurate with the problems and solutions in the ’754 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony. We adopt this as the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Decision. We note that since it is unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition is considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree” we do not adopt the portion of Petitioner’s proposed definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for “an advanced-level degree” at this time.” slip op. at 16
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionNo construction neededOther
“We note that Petitioner presents arguments and evidence regarding “blur[ring] . . . at least a portion of” an object, as recited in independent object because of the display of a semitransparent foreground object would have been “a type of blurring”. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70; Ex. 1009, 3, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have understood “blur” to mean “make or become unclear or less distinct” and that the ’754 patent, in a dependent claim, recites that a blur “includes changing a translucency” of an overlaying object. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53). Patent Owner does not address this contention. On the present record, Petitioner’s proposed construction appears correct and, for purposes of institution, we construe the blurring of an object as displaying that object with less detail. Otherwise, for institution and on the present record, we determine that none of the claim terms from the related litigation require construction, and neither do any other claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy) (citing Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 16
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - PTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01116 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted IPR on all challenged claims and grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood of success for the Ahn and Chaudhri obviousness challenge.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Petitioner, in its Ranking Notice, ranks this Petition second on its list of petitions filed challenging claims of the ’754 patent. Ranking Notice 1–2. Patent Owner agrees that “this may be one of the ‘rare’ situations that requires ‘two petitions.’” Ranking Response 1–2 (quoting PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”),5 59). Our complete analysis of this issue is provided in our decisions on institutions in other proceedings, such as IPR2024-01086. However, because Patent Owner does not argue against the institution of two petitions in this situation, and because this Petition is ranked second, we do not reproduce that analysis here.” slip op. at 6
- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“determine that Petitioner has sufficiently shown how Ahn teaches or suggests limitation 2.d of claim 2, and that the proposed combination of Ahn and Chaudhri teaches or suggests this limitation.” slip op. at 21
- Skill levelOther
“The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers (Pet. 6) appears to be commensurate with the problems and solutions in the ’754 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony. We adopt this as the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Decision. We note that since it is unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition is considered by Petitioner to be “an advanced-level degree” we do not adopt years of experience for “an advanced-level degree” at this time.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“blur[ring] . . . at least a portion of” an object, as recited in independent claims 2 and 225, and argues that displaying less detail in a portion of a background object because of the display of a semitransparent foreground object would have been “a type of blurring”. Pet. 32–33 (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70; Ex. 1009, 3, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have understood “blur” to mean “make or become unclear or less distinct” and that the ’754 patent, in a dependent claim, recites that a blur “includes changing a translucency” of an overlaying object. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53). Patent Owner does not address this contention. On the present record, Petitioner’s proposed construction appears correct and, for purposes of institution, we construe the blurring of an object as displaying that object with less detail. Otherwise, for institution and on the present record, we determine that none of the claim terms from the related litigation require construction, and neither do any other claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only those terms that are in controversy need be construed, and only to the extent slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - Apple Inc. v. Smith Interface Technologies, LLCInstitution deniedPTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01117 · APJ Sharon Fenick · IPR · Institution
The Board discretionarily denied institution because this petition ranked fifth among seven parallel petitions challenging the patent.
RulingsInstitution decision- Parallel petitionsInstitution denied discretionary otherInstitution denied
“petition is warranted given the number of claims at issue. See Trial Practice Guide 59 (identifying situations where “two petitions . . . may be needed”). Patent Owner has asserted 166 claims in the co-pending district court litigation, and Petitioner challenges 91 unique claims in these petitions. See Ranking Notice 2; Ranking Response 2. Also, the vast majority of the challenged claims are asserted in litigation. See Ranking Response 2; Ex. 2004, 3. As a result, we agree that this is the type of “rare” situation where multiple parallel petitions are necessary. Petitioner’s primary argument is that seven petitions were required because the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition, which left few words for arguments directed to new claims (given word count limits). See Ranking Notice 2–3. But this argument is premised on an assumption that these common sections “require[d] approximately 8,350 words” (id. at 3), and Petitioner has not persuasively shown that so many words were actually required for these sections. Petitioner includes no explanation or justification of the length of the sections, but instead, it simply assumes that the words used were required. Having reviewed the analysis in those sections, we do not agree. In other words, although we agree that the common sections needed to be repeated in each petition (and that this reduced the number of words available for other analysis), we are not persuaded that the common sections required approximately 8,350 words. A petitioner is certainly entitled to allocate its words as it sees fit, and we typically have no reason to evaluate those strategic decisions; however, we agree with Patent Owner (see Ranking Response 3) that Petitioner cannot justify a large number of petitions by claiming that it needed additional words for its analysis (given the Board’s word count limits) unless Petitioner’s analysis was concise.” slip op. at 11
Discretionary denialPatents in suitUS 10,656,754 - PTAB · Feb 13, 2025 · IPR2024-01119 · APJ Nathan A Engels · IPR · Institution
The Board instituted review of claims 1, 2, and 208–216 on all grounds, finding a reasonable likelihood that claims 1 and 2 are unpatentable over Ahn, Chaudhri, and Shiplacoff.
RulingsInstitution decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Institution threshold (reasonable likelihood / more likely than not)InstitutedInstituted
“Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director may not authorize an inter partes review unless the information in the petition and preliminary response “shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.” For the reasons that follow, we institute an inter partes review as to the challenged claims of the ’754 patent on all grounds of unpatentability presented in the Petition.” slip op. at 2
- Parallel petitionsDecided for petitioner
“II. DISCRETIONARY DENIAL Petitioner, in its Ranking Notice, ranks this Petition first on its list of petitions filed challenging claims of the ’754 patent. Ranking Notice 1–2. Patent Owner agrees that “this may be one of the ‘rare’ situations that requires ‘two petitions.’” Ranking Response 1–2 (quoting PTAB Consolidated Trial Practice Guide (Nov. 2019) (“Trial Practice Guide”),6 59). Our complete analysis of this issue is provided in our decisions on institutions in other proceedings, such as IPR2024-01086. However, because Patent Owner does not argue against the institution of at least one petition in this situation, and because this Petition is ranked first, we do not reproduce that analysis here.” slip op. at 6
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The portion of the definition proposed by the Petitioner requiring a bachelor’s degree in computer science, computer engineering, human-computer interaction, or a comparable field and at least two years of professional experience working with graphical user interfaces and applications for computers (Pet. 4) appears to be commensurate with the problems and solutions in the ’754 patent and prior art of record and is supported by declarant testimony. We adopt this as the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art for the purposes of this Decision. We note that since it is unclear whether the bachelor’s degree in the proposed definition is the portion of Petitioner’s proposed definition relating to the substitution of years of experience for “an advanced-level degree” at this time.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionDecided for petitioner
“We note that Petitioner presents arguments and evidence regarding “blur[ring] . . . at least a portion of” an object, as recited in independent claims 1 and 2, and argues that displaying less detail in a portion of a background object because of the display of a semitransparent foreground object would have been “a type of blurring”. Pet. 26–27 (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53; Ex. 1004 ¶ 70; Ex. 1009, 3, 6; Ex. 1003 ¶ 93). Petitioner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have understood “blur” to mean “make or become unclear or less distinct” and that the ’754 patent, in a dependent claim, recites that a blur “includes changing a translucency” of an overlaying object. Id. (citing Ex. 1001, 99:51–53). Patent Owner does not address this contention. On the present record, Petitioner’s proposed construction appears correct and, for purposes of institution, we construe the blurring of an object as displaying that object with less detail. Otherwise, for institution and on the present record, we determine that none of the claim terms from the related litigation require construction, and neither do any other claim terms. See Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (only those” slip op. at 9
Claim construction§ 103 obviousnessDiscretionary denialcites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 10,656,754
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.